T Nation

Conservatives Rooting for Democrats this Fall

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0610.forum.html

Read a few of these, especially Buckley and Scarborough. Any other conservatives on here feel the same way?

I don’t think we should lose in '06, but I think having a liberal president with conservative congress in '08 makes some sense.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I don’t think we should lose in '06, but I think having a liberal president with conservative congress in '08 makes some sense. [/quote]

i can see having a democrat president, but not a true “liberal”. i do not think there is a place for the modern liberal in the white house. the modern liberal is, thankfully, unelectable. kerry. hilliary clinton (yeah. yeah. she runs for the middle when an elections is coming…but she fits the bill). pelosi. kennedy. they can win their liberal bastions but they can’t win the white house.

liberals run from the word. they bristle when you call them what they are. remember kerry? ‘that’s not fair! i’m not a liberal!’ we all knew he was liberal. big time. but they toss out a few conservative votes after they decide to run and then they try to tell you they’re not liberal.

nah. they days of liberals in the white house ended with clinton. his foreign policy was a disaster that will have ramifications for decades. the anti-war liberals in congress continue to strengthen the resolve of our enemies by weakening our own here at home. you can’t have that bullshit from a president. i think there are still enough americans who realize that out there to keep it from happening.

Not quite rooting for Democrats, but a couple of pundits with thoughts on whether it would be so bad to lose one chamber, particularly the House:

http://author.nationalreview.com/latest/?q=MjE5NQ==

If there was a place - like there used to be - in the Democratic party for conservatives where they could check the GOP’s excesses but still have some shot at politicians following a reasonably conservative policy approach, I’d be inclined to consider a Democratic vote.

Used to be that way - now, it is very difficult for even a moderately conservative voter to join the camp that is run by Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, and Clinton.

What is wrong with the current GOP (insulated, Washington party with terrible public stewardship of the public trust, etc.) is magnified multiple times over by the Democratic party and will not be cured by voting Democratic. If you don’t like the way a party is acting, it won’t get any better if you vote for the other party that does the same crap twice as bad.

I’m not exactly a conservative but I couldn’t agree with Scarborough more.
The following is just sickening:

Conservative my ass…

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

What is wrong with the current GOP (insulated, Washington party with terrible public stewardship of the public trust, etc.) is magnified multiple times over by the Democratic party and will not be cured by voting Democratic. If you don’t like the way a party is acting, it won’t get any better if you vote for the other party that does the same crap twice as bad.[/quote]

I agree with your point about the Dems, Thunderbolt, but don’t you think that if conservatives, en masse, vote Democrat, making their reasons for doing so clear, the Republican leadership might get the message? Essentially, we have two quasi-socialist parties running this country, and I can only imagine Republican motivation is reelection, so why not make the message loud and clear: If you are going to spend like them, we are going to vote for them.

If we are lucky, 8 years from now the Republican Party might actually represent conservatives, rather than just placating conservatives. At a minimum, with a Dem in the White House, the Republicans in Congress might start acting like conservatives…

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:

I agree with your point about the Dems, Thunderbolt, but don’t you think that if conservatives, en masse, vote Democrat, making their reasons for doing so clear, the Republican leadership might get the message? [/quote]

I think this is a good point, and it could happen. My biggest concern is that a big vote for Democrats that included disgruntled conservatives might send the ‘mandate’ that current Democratic policies - weenified European-esque liberalism - is the policy to put forward.

How high is that cost? If we put them office to punish the GOP, how many policies get enacted that we - conservatives - don’t really support and are hard to undo?

It is a risk. But I think you might be right - and it would help usher in a GOP ‘correction’.

I like that message a lot, but between two parties that have comparable lousy fiscal approaches, all other things being held equal, I’ll take the one that matches my view of foreign policy. And as much criticism as I have for the GOP on foreign policy these days, I might have to kick my own ass for voting for a party that has the foreign policy of the current Democrats.

[quote]If we are lucky, 8 years from now the Republican Party might actually represent conservatives, rather than just placating conservatives. At a minimum, with a Dem in the White House, the Republicans in Congress might start acting like conservatives…
[/quote]

Yeah, and that might be what it takes. Republicans are at their best when they are in ‘reform’ mode it seems of late, which is odd, since they are supposed to be the party of conservatism. I don’t think conservatism means “blindly preserving the status quo”, but at a bare minimum, it should mean rejecting radical, wasteful politics.

I am from a long line of old conservative Democrats - think Zell Miller - but it would be difficult to vote for a Democrat these days, with what they offer and with the risks being so high. But, I remain open to the possibility. :>

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:

I agree with your point about the Dems, Thunderbolt, but don’t you think that if conservatives, en masse, vote Democrat, making their reasons for doing so clear, the Republican leadership might get the message?

I think this is a good point, and it could happen. My biggest concern is that a big vote for Democrats that included disgruntled conservatives might send the ‘mandate’ that current Democratic policies - weenified European-esque liberalism - is the policy to put forward.

How high is that cost? If we put them office to punish the GOP, how many policies get enacted that we - conservatives - don’t really support and are hard to undo?[/quote]

Very true. But, to be honest, at this point, I’m so disillusioned with the GOP, that I’m willing to try just about anything. As it is, I don’t agree with much of its platform to begin with (I just disagree to a lesser extent than I do with the Dems), that they can’t manage to do that which they purport to do best–decrease gov’t spending and shrink, or at least slow, gov’t expansion–I see no reason whatever to vote GOP. As far as I’m concerned, I want change; whether that means this country has to be led by the Dems for a while–even a long while–so be it.

[quote]
It is a risk. But I think you might be right - and it would help usher in a GOP ‘correction’.[/quote]

I hope so–I want another 1994. Sure they pissed people off, but at least they were principled and stuck to their guns–completely unlike the current bunch.

[quote]Essentially, we have two quasi-socialist parties running this country, and I can only imagine Republican motivation is reelection, so why not make the message loud and clear: If you are going to spend like them, we are going to vote for them.

I like that message a lot, but between two parties that have comparable lousy fiscal approaches, all other things being held equal, I’ll take the one that matches my view of foreign policy. And as much criticism as I have for the GOP on foreign policy these days, I might have to kick my own ass for voting for a party that has the foreign policy of the current Democrats.[/quote]

And therein lies my only real trepidation. These are precarious times and it does make me nervous; however, as you said, the GOP isn’t exactly doing a very good job of things. Sure, much of the criticism we hear is bullshit, but they have left a lot to be desired. Again, I’m just ready for change–if only to put things in perspective. Lets see how things play out without Bush & Co. (any GOP president will be seen as a continuation of Bush).

[quote]
If we are lucky, 8 years from now the Republican Party might actually represent conservatives, rather than just placating conservatives. At a minimum, with a Dem in the White House, the Republicans in Congress might start acting like conservatives…

Yeah, and that might be what it takes. Republicans are at their best when they are in ‘reform’ mode it seems of late, which is odd, since they are supposed to be the party of conservatism. I don’t think conservatism means “blindly preserving the status quo”, but at a bare minimum, it should mean rejecting radical, wasteful politics.[/quote]

That’s the funny thing about American politics though, isn’t it? The term “conservative,” when used to describe classical libralism in the context of American politics, is both reformist and preservationist, at the same time. We are a nation founded on classical liberalism, and simultaneously, a nation that has been bastardizing those principles pretty much from day one. What do you call someone who wants a return to some historic ideal, yet in the process of doing so must enact revolutionary reforms?

I like Zel, and his book. Sadly, I don’t expect his brand will ever reach prominence in the Democratic party again. Even so, unless we all start voting third party (which I would prefer, obviously), we either vote Democrat, or we let the GOP continue destroying American conservatism.

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
nah. they days of liberals in the white house ended with clinton. his foreign policy was a disaster that will have ramifications for decades. the anti-war liberals in congress continue to strengthen the resolve of our enemies by weakening our own here at home. you can’t have that bullshit from a president. i think there are still enough americans who realize that out there to keep it from happening.

[/quote]
Uhhggg…The stupidity!
Bush’s foreign policy is a disaster. (hello? Iraq?).

Anti-war liberals? Who are these invented congressmen?

Strengthen resolve? Wouldn’t the pro-terror policies of Bush strengthen their resolve.

Bullshit from a president?
The president has us in a war that he’s not serious about winning for purely political gains. The President has used a national tradgedy that he did nothing to prevent for purely political gain. He’s nothing but bullshit.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
nah. they days of liberals in the white house ended with clinton. his foreign policy was a disaster that will have ramifications for decades. the anti-war liberals in congress continue to strengthen the resolve of our enemies by weakening our own here at home. you can’t have that bullshit from a president. i think there are still enough americans who realize that out there to keep it from happening.

Uhhggg…The stupidity!
Bush’s foreign policy is a disaster. (hello? Iraq?).

Anti-war liberals? Who are these invented congressmen?

Strengthen resolve? Wouldn’t the pro-terror policies of Bush strengthen their resolve.

Bullshit from a president?
The president has us in a war that he’s not serious about winning for purely political gains. The President has used a national tradgedy that he did nothing to prevent for purely political gain. He’s nothing but bullshit.

[/quote]

Hey, lumpy. I know you have to parrot pure party line here.

However, one thing that can’t be pinned on Bush is that “he’s doing Iraq for purely political gain.”

That stopped being positive politically circa 2004.

Say what you want, he sticks to it.

Now, you can go off on “Oh, he needs nuance.”

But, the purely political thing is over the top.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
100meters wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
nah. they days of liberals in the white house ended with clinton. his foreign policy was a disaster that will have ramifications for decades. the anti-war liberals in congress continue to strengthen the resolve of our enemies by weakening our own here at home. you can’t have that bullshit from a president. i think there are still enough americans who realize that out there to keep it from happening.

Uhhggg…The stupidity!
Bush’s foreign policy is a disaster. (hello? Iraq?).

Anti-war liberals? Who are these invented congressmen?

Strengthen resolve? Wouldn’t the pro-terror policies of Bush strengthen their resolve.

Bullshit from a president?
The president has us in a war that he’s not serious about winning for purely political gains. The President has used a national tradgedy that he did nothing to prevent for purely political gain. He’s nothing but bullshit.

Hey, lumpy. I know you have to parrot pure party line here.

However, one thing that can’t be pinned on Bush is that “he’s doing Iraq for purely political gain.”

That stopped being positive politically circa 2004.

Say what you want, he sticks to it.

Now, you can go off on “Oh, he needs nuance.”

But, the purely political thing is over the top.

JeffR
[/quote]

He’s only sticking with it because he’s really got no other options at this point. He’s backed himself into a corner, and is just going to “stay the course” and hope things don’t go to hell even worse before the next guy (or gal) comes along, and he can dump this gigantic fucking mess he’s made onto them.

There’s a reason a lot of democrats are saying what 100Meters is saying.

…because it’s the truth.

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Hey, lumpy. I know you have to parrot pure party line here.

However, one thing that can’t be pinned on Bush is that “he’s doing Iraq for purely political gain.”

That stopped being positive politically circa 2004.

Say what you want, he sticks to it.

Now, you can go off on “Oh, he needs nuance.”

But, the purely political thing is over the top.

JeffR
[/quote]

Uhhmmmm…are you watching his speeches? If we’re in a war to defend civilization(we’re not though), but we only have 142,000 troops when it requires 3 times the amount (to secure Iraq) then yes it’s political.Our president is not serious about Iraq. Please, please pull your head out of your ass.

The only thing he has stuck to is his mistake—a politcal decision, not a strategic one—see needed troop size.

[quote]knewsom wrote:
JeffR wrote:
100meters wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
nah. they days of liberals in the white house ended with clinton. his foreign policy was a disaster that will have ramifications for decades. the anti-war liberals in congress continue to strengthen the resolve of our enemies by weakening our own here at home. you can’t have that bullshit from a president. i think there are still enough americans who realize that out there to keep it from happening.

Uhhggg…The stupidity!
Bush’s foreign policy is a disaster. (hello? Iraq?).

Anti-war liberals? Who are these invented congressmen?

Strengthen resolve? Wouldn’t the pro-terror policies of Bush strengthen their resolve.

Bullshit from a president?
The president has us in a war that he’s not serious about winning for purely political gains. The President has used a national tradgedy that he did nothing to prevent for purely political gain. He’s nothing but bullshit.

Hey, lumpy. I know you have to parrot pure party line here.

However, one thing that can’t be pinned on Bush is that “he’s doing Iraq for purely political gain.”

That stopped being positive politically circa 2004.

Say what you want, he sticks to it.

Now, you can go off on “Oh, he needs nuance.”

But, the purely political thing is over the top.

JeffR

He’s only sticking with it because he’s really got no other options at this point. He’s backed himself into a corner, and is just going to “stay the course” and hope things don’t go to hell even worse before the next guy (or gal) comes along, and he can dump this gigantic fucking mess he’s made onto them.

There’s a reason a lot of democrats are saying what 100Meters is saying.

…because it’s the truth.[/quote]

You are exactly right!

He obviously will never own his mistakes in Iraq—so he’s gonna try to live with them for 2 more years–staying the course as you said…Because anything else would take balls, adding 3X more troops—never gonna happen, and he’ll never redeploy to Kurdistan (dem plan) because then he’d have to admit his mistake and his ignorance

(Keep in mind he didn’t know sunni and shia existed pre-invasion—what an idiot!)

By the way JeffR the people we keep parroting, they’re called the military–you know the people whose lives and advice the Bush admin doesn’t care about. When are you gonna f–king wake up?

[quote]100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Hey, lumpy. I know you have to parrot pure party line here.

However, one thing that can’t be pinned on Bush is that “he’s doing Iraq for purely political gain.”

That stopped being positive politically circa 2004.

Say what you want, he sticks to it.

Now, you can go off on “Oh, he needs nuance.”

But, the purely political thing is over the top.

JeffR

Uhhmmmm…are you watching his speeches? If we’re in a war to defend civilization(we’re not though), but we only have 142,000 troops when it requires 3 times the amount (to secure Iraq) then yes it’s political.Our president is not serious about Iraq. [/quote]

Hard to disagree with that.

Just learned that Bush has actually DOUBLED the national debt over the last six years, from $20 trillion to $43 trillion. I don’t think I’ve ever voted for a Democrat in my life, but again, how much worse could they possibly be?

The problem with our government, and I have been saying this for a while, is that there is no balance of power. When one party has control they tend to do stupid and destructive things to the country because there is no one to check them. We saw it way back when the Democratic party was in control and we are seeing it now with the Republicans. I hope that some balance of power can be restored, but I am not holding my breath.

There will be little fundamental change if democrats gain control. Both parties are so close it is difficult to tell the difference. The country needs fundamental change to cure it’s disease and that won’t happen with either of the behemoth parties.

The people need more autonomy of power and true choice in this country. This won’t happen unless the citizens stand up to the colossal corporations and greedy political parties who steer the country in the direction that benefits THEM - not us!